> Gosh, I subscribed to arch-theory in the belief that I might become
> a little more enlightened about the academic debate surrounding
> archaeology. Reading the posts that Jesse and Chris have just sent,
> I realise that I can experience as much enlightenment (Zen,
> archaeological or otherwise) by participating in flame wars on
> something like alt.paranet.ufo as on this list. 'Bye.
My apologies to anyone whom I may have irritated or offended.
I find mud slinging and flame wars juvenile and wearisome,but
they occur on every list that I have seen,even the supposedly
elevated and scholarly.What's more,the phenomenon is,in my opinion,
directly pertinent to archaeological theory,and I will try to explain
why I hold that opinion.
It appears to me that Jesse misconstrues and misrepresents everything
that I say.Probably,Jesse would say that I do the same to what he says.
We reach a frustrating impasse,which cannot be resolved by reasoned
argument,hence the descent to schoolyard insults.If 'jaw,jaw' doesn't
work,we're into 'war,war'.
This takes us right back to Protagoras:"The way things appear to me,
in that way do they exist for me; the way things appear to you, in that way
do they exist for you."
There can _be_ no resolution without a third reference.In the case of Jesse
and myself,scrapping in the schoolyard,it might be the teacher,who
intervenes.Or the issue could be put to a vote amongst the readers.
In the case of Protagoras,it seems to me that Plato could only get around
relativism by appealing to an absolute,the Good,which is extremely vague
and undefinable.When you get down to it,whose version of 'the Good' do we
use as datum ?
To resolve a conflict of opinion requires the third,the policeman,the Devil,
the Bogeyman,the magistrate,the democratic referendum,the appeal to Ultimate
Truth,the Absolute,God,or some similar concept,like Derrida's irreducible Justice.
A few days ago,I wrote :
"To write responsibly and seriously is to offer meaning to the recipient.
The readers may find no meaning,more meaning or different meaning
from the intended meaning."
This is the crux of the problem.If there is no final,decisive,authorative,
impartial interpretation of any text,- whether it be my e-mail,or the Bible,
or Descartes,or any other written item - then where does that leave us ?
Your version is as good as mine.We may as well decide 'the truth' arbitrarily
in a boxing ring.
But it get's much worse than that,if you consider that ANY knowledge can
be substituted and viewed as a text.So,'reality' or 'the world',or the archaeological
record can be considered as text....and any interpretation is as valid as any other,
open to endless dispute.
That,as I understand it,is the essence of the problem which postmodernism poses
to world civilisation....whose meaning,or which meaning,is THE meaning....
No objective 'truth' as a reference point anymore... except for the Absolutists,they
who will insist that their 'truth' is the truth,just because they say it is.
That is,they can force their 'truth' to prevail,by political pressure or other means
of coercion.
And nobody seems to have got an answer.....have they ?
The above illustrates the problem,in so far as I can outline it with sufficient
brevity to fit one e-mail.
I have suggested in earlier posts,that 'zen mind' may offer a solution to an
otherwise intractable dilemma.
Chris.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|